MINUTES OF MEETING

NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs Improvement District was held on Thursday, January 6, 2000, at 4:00 P.M. at the District Office, 10300 N.W. 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Thomas Grossjung President

Matt Lauritzen Vice President

William Bell Secretary

Also present were:

Rhonda Archer District Staff

Donna Holiday Recording Secretary

Roger Moore District Staff

Dennis Lyles Attorney

Jane Early Gee & Jenson

Tom Martin Gee & Jenson

Patti Hitchcock WCI Communities

Scott Davidson WCI Communities

Dawn Sonneborn Miller, Legg

Walter Fluegal Keith & Associates

Manny Synalovski Synalovski Gutierrez

Jorge Gutierrez Synalovski Gutierrez

Marty Schlossberg SBS Construction

Sam Scarnecchia SBS Construction

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

Mr. Bell called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. with roll call and stated the record will reflect that all Supervisors are present at roll call with the exception of Mr. Grossjung.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the November 4, 1999 Meeting

Mr. Bell stated item two on the agenda is the approval of the Minutes of the November 4th, 1999 meeting which were included in our agenda package. Are there any comments or modifications to the November 4th Minutes?

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor the Minutes of the November 4, 1999 meeting were approved.

Mr. Bell stated I will ask that we make an amendment to the agenda and move up item 4B for consideration so that the individual involved in that can get to the follow-up meeting. Are there any objections?

Mr. Lauritzen replied no.

B. Change Order No. 5 for the Heron Bay Commons Phase II, Site, Clubhouse, Pool, and Tennis Courts Contract for a Net Increase of $94,243.37

Mr. Bell stated item 4B is Change Order No. 5 for the Heron Bay Commons Phase II Site, Clubhouse, Pool, and Tennis Courts Contract for a Net Increase of $94,243.37.

Ms. Early stated I think that number is incorrect.

Ms. Archer stated that is the one that is in the agenda package.

Ms. Early stated Manny Synalovski is here from the architect and the reason it is too high is they have twenty weeks on that and it should only be sixteen weeks.

Ms. Archer stated you have revised that.

Ms. Early stated yes, we have revised the originals that we will sign and he will explain what the difference is.

Ms. Archer stated the revised amount is $82,961.36.

Mr. Synalovski stated my name is Manny Synalovski. I was here at the previous meeting which wasn't held because we didn't have a quorum but we made a small presentation to your Counsel and Mr. Moyer. At the time we discussed that the contractor had submitted a claim for extended General Conditions for an amount of twenty-four weeks. We reviewed that claim ourselves as well as reviewing it with the office of Gee & Jenson and Scott Davidson from WCI. The twenty-four weeks were reduced to twenty weeks but the twenty weeks that we would recommend to this Board to approve was based on two parts. The first sixteen weeks were recommended without any qualifications; the last four weeks of the twenty were recommended to this Board with the understanding that the contractor complete a punch list on or prior to December 13th. We discussed this with Gee & Jenson, we discussed it with WCI, we discussed it with the contractor and corresponded with the contractor that the punch list needed to be completed by December 13th and that the last four weeks of the twenty that we were recommending were subject to the completion of that punch list. The deadline arrived and we visited the facility and there were still items on the punch list that had not been completed. As a result of that, and because we had discussed it with your staff previously, we are here to tell you that we continue to recommend the sixteen weeks and we advised the contractor that we wouldn't be able to recommend the additional four because they hadn't completed the punch list. They advised us that they would come to this meeting and argue their position relative to those four weeks. As of this afternoon, and we visited the facility before arriving here, there are three items of that punch list that are not complete. Of the three, two of them are items that in the course of the holidays because of scheduling and timing we knew were not going to be completed and we discussed this with WCI and those issues were not critical in terms of the punch list as it relates to the December 13th deadline, so those two items remain. There is some tile that needs to be replaced by a gate at the side of the pool because of some color mismatch and then the screen enclosures on the second floor of the exterior balcony need to be installed. We discussed this with the contractor and they told us they will proceed to do that work but it is a little bit time-intensive because the screen enclosure needs to be fabricated before it is installed. For that matter, the tile is quarried stone so until we can get the right color and the right match, we were of the understanding that those two items even on December 13th were not critical.

The third item is as a result of the contractor trying to finalize the punch list. They needed to install a couple of ice makers. When the ice makers arrived, they were too tall to fit under the piece of furniture, so as a remedy to that so that we don't return the ice makers, we cut the two pieces of furniture and they placed the ice makers in there which requires creating a top to complete that. As of this afternoon, everything on that punch list have been completed except the two items that we agreed would be difficult to complete by the thirteenth, and there are two tops that need to be repaired as a result of fitting in these ice units. Because we advised the contractor that the last four weeks of the twenty were subject to completion of the punch list, we discussed it with your staff. We feel that we can't recommend those additional four weeks; nonetheless, since we were going to discuss the other sixteen weeks, the contractor is here and they may or may not want to express their passion over those four additional weeks. At the time that we discussed the additional four weeks, it was also our understanding that on those four weeks the contractor would give the Owner a final release from the contractor in terms of no additional claims relative to time extension and we discussed it with Counsel.

Mr. Lyles stated you have that backwards. The District would receive the final release that there would be no further claims of any kind against the District or the Owner for additional compensation.

Mr. Synalovski stated that is fine. That is something that we had discussed with the contractor in order to recommend the additional four weeks that would allow all of us to be satisfied and move on to our other projects and for the District and Owner to enjoy the facility. The facility has received a Certificate of Occupancy. The facility is quite beautiful and once again, as of this afternoon, some limited material, the pool tile by the side gate, needs to be replaced and the contractor has told us that they will do it; the second floor balcony screen enclosure needs to be installed and two counter tops need to be repaired as a result of fitting in the ice makers. The ice makers were on the punch list and they arrived but during the installation it was realized that the counter that had already been installed was too low, so those counters were cut in order to install the ice makers.

Mr. Bell stated thank you. For the record, Mr. Grossjung has joined the meeting. Would the representative for the contractor like to speak?

Mr. Schlossberg stated my name is Marty Schlossberg and I am the President of SBS Construction. We obviously disagree with the recommendation. Gee & Jenson, WCI and the architect met and discussed the extension of time and have posed this to us and at the time that it was posed, it seemed bothersome because a punch list is a very subjective type of an item. The thirteenth came and upon that we were notified that there were outstanding items. At that point, we met with the architect on the project and walked the project and looked at the items on the list. There were a few items that were on a several page list that were not to the architect's satisfaction and there were a couple of items that we looked at and agreed that there might be nail holes in wood that should be addressed better than they might have been addressed when the punch list was prepared. To say that the items were not addressed, I am not sure that we are in agreement with that. With regard to the twenty weeks' extension, we feel we are deserving of more than twenty weeks and to reduce the twenty weeks is quite bothersome. I am not sure what else I can tell you other than that we disagree with the recommendation.

Mr. Bell stated having built a couple of homes, help me understand how your opening statement of a punch list is subjective when in fact we are talking about some very specific things like an ice maker or tile that doesn't match. Is that subjective?

Mr. Schlossberg stated what we are talking about is if we are going to go into those items with regard to the ice maker, we provided an ice maker that was specified in the plans. We provided an ice maker, we provided counters and counter tops as specified, so the height of the counter tops was specified in the plans and we provided it just as it was specified. We provided the ice makers as specified and the ice makers don't fit under the counter tops. With regard to the pool tile, the pool tile is a natural product, it comes from Mexico and there are variations in color. It is very difficult to control a variation in color from a natural product like that. We have agreed that we are not certain how to obtain the tile yet and how long it will take to obtain the tile that will match and then of course we need to address the ice maker issue.

Mr. Lauritzen asked Mr. Lyles can you clear this up for me? We are looking at a change order and it sounds as if we are talking about a contract dispute.

Mr. Lyles stated I am going to ask Ms. Early to help as well. I am sitting here listening to this give and take between the contractor and architect and I think some of the basic fundamentals are missing for the people who are here that are lay people. The contractor had a certain amount of time to complete the job. They encountered different sorts of difficulties as the job progressed. As you know, there are liquidated damages provisions in the contract per day for each day they are late. We are in a period where we are a number of weeks behind the projected completion date. We were at that point a month ago. I apologize to Mr. Grossjung. He heard all of this last month when we didn't have a quorum but he sat patiently and listened to the pros and cons of all of this. We are at the point where we are trying to determine how many weeks it would be fair and appropriate to grant to the contractor beyond the original completion date so that they don't have the liquidated damage provisions go into effect to the full extent. From my point of view, one of the key parts of these negotiations that went on prior to presenting this to the Board at the sixteen-week versus twenty-week level was we are going to give you twenty additional weeks to complete the job if you are through with everything including the punch list items on December 13th, which they agreed to.

Mr. Schlossberg stated we didn't agree to it; it was just put in front of us that way. It was said this is what we are throwing out to you.

Mr. Lyles stated the understanding sitting here listening to the presentation a month ago was this was what had been arrived at between the architect, the Engineers and the contractor: twenty weeks but you have to be complete by the thirteenth and the presentation was if they can get everything done and all of us can be done, that would be fair. Now I guess I am hearing for the first time the contractor takes the position you never agreed to that.

Mr. Schlossberg stated it was agreed on between Gee & Jenson, WCI and the architect. Those are the parties that agreed upon it.

Mr. Grossjung asked did you present a counter to that or did you just acquiesce when it was presented to you?

Mr. Schlossberg replied we had our work to do and we were doing it anyway. Those folks agreed that that was their plan of action. We were just moving forward with the completion of the work.

Mr. Grossjung asked so not having heard from you can be construed as acceptance? If I sent you a letter and said here is what we are proposing, a twenty-week extension, if you disagreed would you not have sent back something saying that is an unfair timing?

Mr. Schlossberg responded we disagreed. We corresponded with the architectural firm and Gee & Jenson and made it clear that we disagreed but it still did not hold us back from completing our work.

Mr. Lauritzen stated then you did the best you could to get the punch list completed by the thirteenth.

Mr. Schlossberg stated absolutely.

Mr. Lyles stated if they were not in agreement with that compromise, then it should not have even been presented to the Board then or now. That kind of compromise should be presented in the framework of a change order if it is agreed to by the contractor, so I guess we really don't have anything to talk about today.

Mr. Schlossberg stated if I could state a couple of other things, we were out there with supervision, paying for supervision, and WCI was still completing the owner's portion of the work into November in order for us to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, so we had to provide supervision or a superintendent to interact with building officials that would come out to the job to get those final inspections well into November, which was a cost we incurred, and the twenty weeks is taking us through the end of September. We have tried to complete this project in a gentlemanly fashion, in an upbeat manner. We feel that we have turned over a good product to you and we are disturbed and disappointed that we are even engaging in this type of conversation.

Mr. Lauritzen asked Ms. Early, what is WCI's stance?

Ms. Early replied I had expressed that I didn't understand it but what he is talking about as far as the superintendent is he had supervision for landscape work. Landscape work was on the exterior of the building and it wasn't his contract. I don't understand why he would have supervision. I don't know if there was something else WCI was working on; this is not a WCI project

Mr. Schlossberg stated by virtue of not being complete, somebody had to be there and meet an inspector, to have a conversation with an inspector, to get signed off.

Ms. Early asked how can your superintendent have a conversation with an inspector on landscaping? That is my question.

Mr. Schlossberg replied they need to have a warm body out there to communicate with when they come out to inspect anything.

Mr. Grossjung stated I think I agree that I don't see this is our role to arbitrate a change order. I think what I heard last month in lieu of a full Board meeting but just dialog was that this was agreed upon and would be handled.

Mr. Lyles stated you have directly retained engineers and, through your engineers, professionals like architects to do these things for you and I don't think you are in a position to hear a presentation of pros and cons and do it on the run at a Board meeting. I think the last question was an indication that your Engineer and the contractor don't see eye to eye on the issue of the superintendent on the site. I think all of those things need to be nailed down by your professional staff and presented to you with a recommendation and you can act on it or not. It doesn't seem that there is a meeting of the minds between your professionals and the contractor and I don't think it is fair to put you in the position as members of the Board of Supervisors to step in and become engineers, architects and contract arbitrators without any preparation or real thoughtful consideration that this important matter deserves. Having heard what you heard last month, I was under the impression that it was agreed to by the contractor and the only reason it was coming back is because there may or may not have been a very minor reason why they didn't meet the completion date of the thirteenth and you might want to waive that or give them a little extra time based on that. It looks to me that the whole thing is up in the air at this point.

Mr. Synalovski stated I think you are right in many ways. Had the punch list been completed one hundred percent, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Mr. Lyles stated that is not what the contractor just said. He said he never agreed to that punch list being the key to the extra four weeks, that you agreed as the architect with the Engineers and WCI and he was not a part of that. I don't know how we can act on it.

Mr. Schlossberg asked can we ask the architect to be more specific regarding the outstanding punch list items, the few that are there, and talk about the significance or insignificance of the items that we are referring to?

Mr. Lyles responded that is up to the Board.

Mr. Lauritzen asked why does that have to be done here?

Mr. Schlossberg responded because you are talking about something that is very near and dear to us and that is money that our firm is owed and due and we tend to take that seriously.

Mr. Bell stated I can empathize with what you are saying, however, you have three other parties that apparently are not all on the same page. Once again, we go back to the fact that we employ an engineering firm to make recommendations through the Manager to the Board and we rely upon all of their background knowledge and their time and efforts spent in completing these negotiations as opposed to the Board being part of the negotiations. If there appears to be a breakdown or a lack of communication from my perspective, not being at the meeting last month, between possibly the architect and the contractor, and I am only speculating, but obviously you are not on the same page. Is that accurate?

Mr. Scarnecchia stated I would like to ask a question. If for some reason the parties that you have hired and we cannot get together on an agreement, what steps does the contractor have to take for resolution?

Mr. Lyles replied that can always happen and at the end of that process, you may want to approach the Board and make a presentation, but what has happened here in this particular setting is the Staff has come forward, presented the whole matter and it turns out you were never in agreement with that which leaves us at loose ends. If the Board has a full and complete rundown on all of these items from Staff and hears your presentation and wants to do something different, it can. If you disagree, you can always take it to court but if litigation is the ultimate answer, it is a time-consuming and expensive and very unsatisfactory way to close out a contract. It sounds as if you are fairly close but, for whatever reason, the Board's professional staff has been under the impression you were in agreement with the proposed close-out of this project. I know I was under that impression, having heard the presentation last month, and it was a complete surprise to me to hear you never agreed to that in the first place. It sounds as if you need to come back one more time after they are in the position to make their final recommendation. This is not a presentation or recommendation; we are negotiating on the spot without anybody at the dais having done any homework.

Mr. Bell stated I can assure you that for the three members of this Board money is near and dear to our hearts as well and we understand your concern and we are talking about some major dollars. If it cannot be resolved, it becomes an official item for discussion at the Board level.

Mr. Lauritzen stated usually that demands a lot of default on the contractor's part. I haven't seen any in four or five years. When was the last time we had a problem like this? I don't think we have ever had a problem like this. Something must have been extraordinary for you to get hurt for us to say we are going to break the contract.

Mr. Schlossberg stated your facility has been open and operating since November and we are proud of what we turned over to you. It is not that you have gotten something that is in any way an inferior product.

Mr. Lauritzen stated the point is that we are flying blind. We depend upon staff members that we have known for years and years and with whom we have a good working relationship, so it is hard for us to jump in and start passing judgment on things about which we are totally ignorant.

Mr. Grossjung asked is it possible for all of you to meet now and spend some time while we continue our meeting to see if you can come to a meeting of the minds and resolve this matter?

Mr. Synalovski replied we will be happy to do that and if I may, I am going to suggest that if we don't come to an agreement on the last four weeks, that it is still possible. I believe that was the item intended to be on the agenda, for the sixteen-week period to be reviewed and to be approved. I think what we are debating is four weeks; we are not debating anything other than that.

Mr. Lyles stated I don't know that I agree with that.

Ms. Early stated this change order isn't a final balancing change order is what Mr. Synalovski is saying I believe. These are items that we feel they are due. We do still have to do a balancing change order. There is a deduction for a tennis roller and then whatever we agree to with the additional weeks that he is requesting. Either we sit down and agree to something and work it out for the next Board meeting or I think what Mr. Synalovski is saying is that this change order is what we brought to the Board last month and it was not to be a balancing change order, but we feel he is due the sixteen weeks until we can sit down and agree if he is in fact due anything else.

Mr. Martin stated I have discussed this with Ms. Early and I would suggest if they could approve the change order for sixteen weeks, have us have a sit-down meeting with all four parties involved this coming week all in one room with SBS Construction, the architect, WCI and us and work out the four-week situation. Maybe I am missing something but as I see it, the item in hand today is the four weeks. Is that correct Mr. Synalovski that the four weeks is the item of contention right now?

Mr. Synalovski replied I think at this point that we might want to bring our attorney in at this point to ask for his advice.

Mr. Martin stated all I want to try to do is get it resolved if the four parties could meet. I don't know about the other items that are in contention. Is it correct that you have signed the change order?

Ms. Early stated no he hasn't.

Mr. Martin asked are you familiar with the change order?

Mr. Schlossberg replied yes.

Mr. Martin asked do you have a problem with the change order other than the four weeks?

Mr. Schlossberg replied at this juncture, we came to the table, we initially had a 24-week change order and we tried to be gentlemen about it and discussed a 20-week change order. At this point, I am not sure if we want to do that.

Mr. Martin stated we obviously have to be in full accord when we come in here. If you want to talk to your attorney, that is certainly your option. I would like to suggest that in order to try to resolve this, we have a meeting this coming week, and I don't care if it is your office or our office, that the four parties sit down and we get this resolved. We are not going to resolve it sitting here today and we aren't going to resolve it after this Board meeting in my opinion. I would like to recommend that we table it until we have a chance to discuss it among all of the parties. Is that acceptable to you?

Mr. Schlossberg replied that is acceptable.

Ms. Early stated you realize that we are not going to get this resolved until the next Board meeting. I can't process that pay estimate for Change Order No. 5 until they approve it. That is why Mr. Synalovski was suggesting to process this change order for sixteen weeks and then do a final balancing change order for whatever we agree to.

Mr. Scarnecchia asked can you give my partner and me a minute outside? I hate to hold the meeting up.

Mr. Bell stated we can move on to other business and when you come back in, we will take up the matter.

Mr. Lyles stated I don't want to disagree with Ms. Early and Mr. Martin but with everything that is going on, and with their desire to confer with Counsel, I don't think you would be wise to approve part of the change order and leave some of it hanging. I think you need to have the meeting that the Engineer is suggesting and have the whole thing in front of the Board and have it all wrapped up in one action of the Board, make full payment, have releases and have everything done at one time. I think that doing it piecemeal is asking for trouble.

Ms. Archer asked do you think that you can meet with your attorney, meet with the Engineers, architects and WCI and get back to the Board a week from now? Perhaps we could recess this meeting and come back.

Mr. Schlossberg asked is there a way to expedite what is decided on at a date earlier than your next Board meeting?

Ms. Archer replied that is what I am suggesting.

Mr. Schlossberg stated I would appreciate that.

Ms. Archer stated the next Board meeting is in a month. What I am suggesting is if their schedules permit to recess this meeting for a week to take up this one item.

Mr. Lauritzen stated if they are willing to do that, I have no problem.

Mr. Bell stated next Thursday is the thirteenth.

Mr. Lauritzen stated I am going to be in Washington. If it could be the week after that, I could make it.

Mr. Bell stated the thirteenth is fine for me.

Ms. Archer stated the seventeenth is a holiday.

Mr. Lauritzen asked how long would it take? Could you do a quorum by phone?

Mr. Lyles replied you have to have a live quorum. If two of you are here, one of you can participate by phone.

Mr. Lauritzen asked does it have to be on Thursday?

Mr. Lyles replied no, it can be any day that is convenient for everybody.

Ms. Archer asked will you be here on Wednesday?

Mr. Lauritzen replied no, I leave on the twelfth and come back on the fourteenth.

Mr. Bell stated the twentieth is Thursday.

Mr. Grossjung stated I am in town on the twentieth.

Mr. Lauritzen stated the twentieth tentatively sounds okay with me.

Ms. Archer stated that will give them two weeks.

Mr. Bell stated let me clarify one thing. Looking at these change orders that we have had on this project, did you say you would recommend today an additional sixteen-week extension to this contract?

Mr. Martin stated we have recommended that in the change order.

Mr. Bell asked have we had any discussion about the justification for the sixteen weeks?

Ms. Early stated Mr. Synalovski was here at the last meeting to explain it. If you wish, he can explain it again to you.

Mr. Grossjung stated we had a lot of discussion about it but there were a lot of "ifs" at that point in time as to what was going to be accomplished and what was not going to be accomplished and what was going to be included. As Mr. Lyles said, there are going to be releases provided, etc. and I am not sure I am totally comfortable with what encompassed the sixteen-week approval inasmuch as we did not have a quorum, it was not acted upon, this would be the first meeting we have officially looked at the sixteen weeks.

Mr. Bell asked I do not want to throw a monkey wrench into the situation but should that not be a part of this discussion? There is no sense in having them attempt to negotiate something if there is no justification. I heard you say you would recommend the sixteen weeks.

Mr. Synalovski stated all of the issues relative to the sixteen-week time extension have been satisfied completely by the contractor.

Ms. Archer stated I think what Mr. Bell is asking is why we are granting the sixteen-week extension. What is the good reason?

Mr. Bell stated yes. What is the justification for the extension of the sixteen weeks?

Mr. Synalovski replied we discussed it a month ago but we are certainly ready to do that now.

Mr. Martin stated we would have that when we make the presentation.

Ms. Archer asked would you rather wait two weeks?

Mr. Martin replied yes.

Mr. Synalovski stated if you want to address the sixteen-week change order, we can do that right now and I will be happy to go through the items and explain how we reached sixteen weeks and why we recommend sixteen weeks.

Mr. Bell asked Ms. Early, do you feel very comfortable with supporting the sixteen-week extension?

Ms. Early replied yes.

Mr. Bell stated there is strong justification: weather, suppliers, architect changes for example.

Ms. Early stated yes.

Mr. Bell asked Mr. Martin, do you concur?

Mr. Martin replied yes I do. We have gone through it. I sat down for two and a half hours.

Mr. Lauritzen stated they want twenty weeks.

Mr. Martin stated they came in with twenty-four weeks originally.

Mr. Scarnecchia stated we feel we have offered a compromise already.

Mr. Lauritzen stated to get from twenty-four to twenty weeks.

Mr. Scarnecchia stated yes.

Mr. Synalovski stated that was our understanding, that they accepted the compromise at twenty weeks with the understanding that the last four of the twenty were subject to completing the punch list. That is what we presented.

Mr. Lauritzen stated this is getting down to a couple of things on a punch list.

Mr. Synalovski stated it is getting down to a couple of things and a couple of weeks.

Mr. Lauritzen stated it sounds as if a compromise could be reached.

Mr. Bell stated then you get back to Counsel's concern on the record wanting to possibly discuss this with your attorney because it is a little out of your comfort zone and I understand that. With that being the case, we should definitely recess and continue the item on the twentieth. Is that what I have heard from everybody?

Mr. Synalovski asked are you saying we would convene again on the twentieth of January?

Mr. Bell replied yes. You just confirmed that Mr. Lyles?

Mr. Lyles replied yes.

Mr. Bell stated what I am hearing is that we will defer item 4B for continuation to four o'clock on January 20th.

Mr. Lyles stated at the end of this meeting, we will recess instead of adjourn.

On MOTION by Mr. Bell seconded by Mr. Grossjung with all in favor Item 4B was deferred until January 20, 2000, at 4 p.m.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Plats

A. Douglas West Plat

Mr. Bell stated we will move back to the agenda with item number three, Consideration of Plats. Item A is Douglas West Plat.

Ms. Hitchcock stated the Douglas West Plat is a property of about twenty-four acres owned by the Broward County School Board. As its name implies it is west of Douglas High School, south of Holmberg Road. Its access will be Holmberg Road. The School Board has owned it for some time but was uncertain as to what the intended use of the property would be. At one point, it was thought it might an expansion for Douglas High school, perhaps a temporary elementary school and now they have designated it for a middle school. In the adopted budget they are planning on starting construction in the year 2006 but there are rumors that it has been moved up for an opening in 2003 hopefully.

Mr. Lauritzen stated opening in 2003 would mean construction in 2001.

Ms. Hitchcock stated yes. That is not in concrete with the School Board as yet but those are the goals that we and the City of Parkland are working towards with the School Board and it is important that we move forward with the plat in order to have the property ready for school construction. With the plat, the Board is asked to accept drainage from the lands.

Ms. Archer asked do you want to consider all of these at once or one at a time?

Mr. Bell asked are they connected?

Ms. Archer replied they are not connected but she can present all of them and then you can ask questions.

Mr. Bell asked are you okay with that Mr. Lyles?

Mr. Lyles replied plats go through with approval lines on them for government agencies that have jurisdiction, so as opposed to a series of motions on change orders or contract amendments, I would be more comfortable if you vote on each one separately.

Mr. Bell asked are there any questions?

On MOTION by Mr. Bell seconded by Mr. Grossjung with all in favor the Douglas West Plat was approved.

B. School Site D-6 Plat

Ms. Hitchcock stated this is the elementary school located north on Pine Island Road, north of Fox Ridge and across from Parkland Isles that is under construction. It is a twelve-acre elementary school site that will be conveyed to the School Board upon completion of the zoning and platting of the property as well as WCI's obligation to demuck and backfill the site. The contract has been awarded for the design and for the construction of the elementary school. We are in the process of doing the plat approval. We are also in the process of doing the permitting for the earthwork with the intention of completing that by the end of March. The school is being designed and we think that it will start construction in the first half of this year to be opened by August of 2001.

Mr. Grossjung asked who is Keith on here?

Ms. Hitchcock replied Bill Keith is the principal of Keith & Associates. Walter Fluegal is here representing them.

Mr. Grossjung asked why is this recommendation coming from them rather than coming from Gee & Jenson?

Mr. Martin replied they do platting for the property

Mr. Grossjung stated usually there is a letter by Gee & Jenson saying they have reviewed it and recommend approval.

Ms. Early stated it is in there.

Mr. Martin stated there should be a letter on all of the plats.

Mr. Lyles stated on this kind of transaction, Keith & Associates are the engineering firm for the property owner and you, the County, the City, everybody has to approve these plats, so your recommendation from your Engineers is for approval or not. Keith & Associates are doing all of the engineering work and processing the plat. You are not processing it; you are just the government agency that is reviewing it.

Ms. Early stated the letter is just before the Douglas West Plat.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Grossjung with all in favor the School Site D-6 Plat was approved.

C. Heron Bay Commercial Plat

Ms. Hitchcock stated Heron Bay Commercial is a fairly odd-shaped piece of land in the City of Coral Springs. WCI's ownership of this property surrounds the Sawgrass Center. If you have been up that way, you have seen a shopping center under construction on the Sawgrass Center. It is owned by Paradise Development Company. Our ownership wraps around. It is land-used Commercial and zoned B-3 in the City of Coral Springs and we are coming in to plat it as one perimeter plat. As it is such a difficult piece, we don't know how it will ultimately be divided. With the plat I understand that your Engineers recommended that there be a drainage easement provided so that the Sawgrass Center property has an outfall to one of your surface water management areas. We have amended the dedication language on the plat that will be presented to you for signature at this meeting which does grant to the North Springs Improvement District a drainage easement. We are going to be working with your Engineers on the location of that drainage easement.

Mr. Martin stated we will need approval subject to the easement being provided.

Ms. Hitchcock stated we have already amended the plat language itself that indicates one will be provided. What you are asked to execute today complies with the request except that the location has to be established.

Mr. Bell asked are there any questions?

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the Heron Bay Commercial Plat was approved subject to the location of the drainage easement being reviewed and approved by the Engineers for the District..

D. Heron Bay East Plat

Ms. Hitchcock stated Heron Bay East Plat is comprised of our next five neighborhoods within the Heron Bay development. Nob Hill Road is presently constructed to Trails End. It is presently being designed to be built about 1,800 feet further north. The Heron Bay East Plat includes that right-of-way and includes the next entrance to Heron Bay. This will be the only entrance to Heron Bay in the City of Parkland and off of Nob Hill Road and it includes neighborhoods 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in this location. Lot sizes are 55', 65', 75', 90' and 100' wide lots so there will be a series of different products that will be developed in there. It contains 360 single family lots.

Mr. Lauritzen asked what will the price range be? Do you have any idea, low $200,000's to a million dollars?

Ms. Hitchcock replied in looking at what is happening south of Heron Bay Boulevard on the smaller lots up against the Sawgrass Expressway, townhouses begin at $150,000. We don't have any townhouse lots in here but the small single family lots are anywhere from $200,000 and $250,000 for the home and the largest lots will be similar to The Falls and also The Colony that is under construction. We do have homes in those neighborhoods from $700,000 to a million dollars. The language does presently provide drainage easements and flowage easements to the District but anything additional that you need we'll take up with your Engineers

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor the Heron Bay East Plat was approved subject to the additional twenty foot drainage easement that is called for in the Engineer's letter.

E. Tall Pines Estates

Ms. Hitchcock stated this is along Riverside Drive. Riverside Acres was our first subdivision in the City of Parkland. It is fifteen one-acre lots. When we came in with Tall Pines, we included in that plat the triangular parcel of land which is north Riverside Acres. It is about six acres. We did not know what to do with that piece of land years ago. We have come in with a layout of four single family lots all in excess of one acre off of a cul de sac that aligns with the entrance to Tall Pines. It would be similar to Riverside Acres development but they also have public streets. It is a replat.

Mr. Bell asked are there any questions?

On MOTION by Mr. Bell seconded by Mr. Grossjung with all in favor the Tall Pines Estates Plat was approved.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Change Orders

A. Change Order No. 1 for Parkland Isles Phase II Landscape and Irrigation Contract for a Net Increase of $34,586.50

Mr. Bell stated item 4A is Change Order No. 1 for Parkland Isles Phase II Landscape and Irrigation Contract for a net increase of $34,586.50.

Ms. Early stated at the November meeting is when we discussed the Butterfly Landscaping matter. It is additions to each item that he had since he waited so long to get that project started. That is what this change order is. There are a few deductions in prices but the majority of his line items did increase in unit costs.

Mr. Grossjung stated this is the one where all of the Palm Trees were gone.

Ms. Early stated that is correct. We were having a problem getting the Oak Trees.

Mr. Bell asked are these in line with what is available on the wholesale market?

Ms. Early replied Scott Davidson had checked into all of these prices.

Mr. Davidson stated I reviewed them very thoroughly with him and a lot of the deductions are because we can't get the bigger ones anymore since the hurricane came through. We could only get the small ones that actually stayed up during the hurricane because most of the materials come from Homestead. The same thing is true with the Palm Trees. Some of them were bigger so we had to increase the spec because there was nothing in between a certain size. We reviewed those with the contractor and came up with some compromises.

Mr. Bell asked are there any questions?

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor Change Order No. 1 for Parkland Isles Phase II Landscape and Irrigation Contract for a Net Increase of $34,586.50 was approved.

C. Change Order No. 9 & Final for the Nob Hill Road & Parkland Isles Earthwork Contract for a Net Increase of $578,774.35

Mr. Bell stated we will move to item 4C, Change Order No. 9 & Final for the Nob Hill Road & Parkland Isles Earthwork Contract for a net increase of $578,774.35.

Ms. Early stated this is the earthwork contract with Triple R that has been going on for the past few years. About a year ago is when we discovered that the lot survey that we had done was incorrect and we did come to the Board a few times to try to increase the muck quantity. If you look at the change order, the majority of the price is in the addition of the muck and then what happens is once you increase demucking, you also increase the embankment amount, that is where the majority of the money is and each other line item is just to balance, either add or deduct according to his original units.

Mr. Bell stated it is for additional demucking.

Ms. Early stated they had a lot of errors where they said there was no muck and we ended up having three feet, five feet, etc.

Mr. Bell stated now we are seeing the end result of all of that, $578,000 worth of result.

Mr. Martin stated for the record, the contract is still in line with the amount of funds that we had estimated in the original bond issue, so we have not exceeded the bond issue amount because when we put the preliminary numbers together to sell the bonds, we had anticipated there was muck in there. That amount of dollars was incorporated in our original estimate to establish the bond issue amount.

Ms. Early stated we are still under what we estimated we would spend on this contract. That was in the bond issue.

Mr. Bell stated for a point of clarification, it was just a bad job of surveying.

Ms. Early stated we got a credit back from the surveyor.

Mr. Martin stated we got the money back and then we wrote you a check.

Mr. Bell asked are there any other questions?

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Grossjung with all in favor Change Order No. 9 & Final for the Nob Hill Road & Parkland Isles Earthwork Contract for a Net Increase of $578,774.35 was approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Work Authorization No. 45 for Heron Bay Commons Pool Heater Design and Bid

Mr. Grossjung stated item five is the consideration of Work Authorization No. 45 for Heron Bay Commons Pool Heater Design and Bid.

Ms. Early stated we already did this bid. We did a spec book and had plans for the pool and sent out for a bid and we didn't get any bidders. We can either rebid it and try to contact some people to see if they want to bid on putting the pool heater in or I can try to get a price from somebody to do it. We called LaGasse who did the pool and they didn't want any parts of it. I think Mr. Davidson tried to contact some people as well. I thought I had somebody who was going to put a bid in but he couldn't work in Broward County so that didn't work out.

Ms. Archer asked do you have an estimate?

Ms. Early replied they told us it would be around $10,000.

Mr. Davidson stated it would be a little under $10,000.

Mr. Bell asked is this going to be a heat pump or gas?

Mr. Martin stated it will be gas.

Mr. Lyles stated this Work Authorization is for you to do the bidding.

Ms. Early stated that is correct. I did it already.

Mr. Lyles stated this is not a second bid.

Ms. Early stated no. I brought this to the last meeting when we didn't have a quorum. I did the bid anyway. I don't know if you want me to rebid it or try to get a couple of prices.

Mr. Grossjung asked is the cost of rebidding the same as the first bid? We will be spending more to get the bid than the total cost of the job.

Ms. Early stated I already have everything ready. It is going to be minimal now.

Ms. Archer stated we will just run another ad and call some people.

Mr. Bell stated not being an attorney, it would seem to me that since it wasn't formally approved because there was not a quorum here that we should in fact do this, rebid it.

Ms. Archer stated what wasn't formally approved was the Work Authorization for them to do their work in order to be able to put it out for bid.

Mr. Bell stated I understand but if we are going to authorize them to do something that had already been done because of the lack of a quorum, your question is if we want you to rebid it or call for some prices.

Ms. Early stated I can rebid it; I only need ten days because it is only $10,000 and I can have it for the next Board meeting.

Mr. Bell stated it is not going to cost the Board any more money to do this, to rebid it.

Ms. Early stated no because I have the plans. The only cost would be making a few phone calls and sending the ad to the paper.

Mr. Martin asked don't we need authorization to rebid?

Ms. Archer asked do you want Ms. Early to try to get this back to you by the 20th so that if she has bids in by then, you can approve it when we reconvene?

Mr. Martin stated my recommendation is to rebid.

Ms. Early stated I can try to get it back by the 20th if I can get it to the paper tomorrow.

Ms. Archer stated the reason I ask is because I have gotten a few calls from people in Heron Bay who would like to have a heated pool since it is winter time and they would like to be able to enjoy the pool.

Mr. Bell stated I am curious why there would be no bidders. Is there a lot of work out there now?

Ms. Early replied I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me.

Mr. Martin stated it may be because it is an LP gas and gas lines and things that have to be installed by the supplier of the gas. It is a small project in relation to putting in a pool with a heater and everything in there. You are not getting the interest because there is a lot of work out there.

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor Work Authorization No. 45 for Heron Bay Commons Pool Heater Design and Bid was approved and the Engineers were authorized to rebid the job.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Conveyance of Quit Claim Deed for Tall Pines Parcel A Well Site

Mr. Grossjung stated item number six is Consideration of Conveyance of Quit Claim Deed for Tall Pines Parcel A Well Site.

Ms. Early stated this is the plat that Ms. Hitchcock presented, Tall Pines Estates. The District was originally going to have a well site there and we no longer need it. This is conveying the land back to WCI.

Mr. Lyles stated in your motion you will need to include an authorization to execute a Termination of Use document which they have also submitted which will make it clear that restrictions that are of record that this property can only be used as a well site are being terminated. There are two documents, the Quit Claim Deed and the Termination of Use document which will need to be signed by the Board.

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor Conveyance of a Quit Claim Deed for Tall Pines Parcel A Well Site was approved and the execution of the Termination of Use document was authorized.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports

A. Attorney

Mr. Lyles stated other than all of the items which you have been hearing about throughout the meeting, I do not have anything to report. You may hear from the Engineer during her report of some continuing problems with ARZ Builders, which is a landscape and berm contractor. There isn't a lawsuit yet so I will defer to Ms. Early on that but it looks as if there is going to be one at any minute. There is nothing new to report.

B. Engineer

Ms. Early stated Mr. Martin can report on the ARZ matter.

Mr. Martin stated ARZ is the contractor who is doing the berms and sidewalks in Parkland Isles Phase II. That is along Trails End, Pine Island and Holmberg Road. The contract is late but the bigger problem is the fact that the contractor has submitted a pay request for 100% of the work minus a ten percent retainage. That would be substantial completion. We have not received any of the concrete test reports for concrete sidewalk on Pine Island or on Trails End Road. We have not received the densities for a portion of Trails End Road.

Mr. Lauritzen asked do those reports come from them or a third party?

Mr. Martin replied they come from the contractor.

Mr. Lauritzen stated he wants to get paid before he shows the reports you are talking about.

Mr. Martin stated under the terms of the contract, he has to employ an independent testing laboratory to do this testing. He is supposed to furnish those to us as soon as they are completed.

Mr. Lauritzen asked is all of this in the contract?

Mr. Martin replied yes.

Mr. Lauritzen asked is there a legitimate reason why he hasn't come forward with this or do you think he is purposely stalling these reports?

Mr. Martin replied I haven't figured out what he is doing. I am the evil person. He has told me this in so many writings.

Mr. Lauritzen asked what kind of reputation does this ARZ have?

Mr. Martin replied we didn't have anything bad on him when he got the job. We checked him out and talked with some people who used to work for Gee & Jenson in West Palm Beach and the work was satisfactory. He is insisting on getting paid. I will not recommend payment until I get the supporting documentation for the work that has been completed. He has therefore left the job site and I am assuming that he is going to file a lawsuit. Mr. Lyles contacted his attorney because we wanted to discuss it with his attorney and the attorney advised Mr. Lyles that they will not meet until they get paid.

Mr. Lauritzen stated it is in the contract that they have to supply these things before they get paid.

Mr. Martin stated yes. They have to furnish them. The density test and the concrete test are to be furnished as the job progresses. He has not furnished this information and he hasn't given us the elevations and the cross sections on the berm or the elevations on the sidewalk so that we know they are correct. Without having this information and knowing that the concrete tests are corr